Monday, November 8, 2010

HOW WOULD YOU KNOW WHAT HOT WAS, IF THERE WERE NO COLD?What would you call light if there were no darkness? In the increasingly polarized world of politics, how would politically uncommitted people know how important America’s founding values are without hearing the progressive harangues?

I ask these questions to say this: The best alternative for conservatives is for House democrats to elect Nancy Pelosi as their minority leader.

Say what!?

Calm down and bear with me. The midterm election cycle brought forward a resurgence of national pride and political awareness. Between tea party gatherings, cable television commentators, Internet bloggers, and just plain folks talking to their neighbors, this country is moving forward again. But beware; the path is still unsteady and dangerous.

To sustain our momentum, and to rationally gain commitment from the political fence-sitters, we need the radical ravings of the left as a comparison.

Before Pelosi, Reid, and Obama were part of Americans’ daily intake of news, our founding principles were available to anyone willing to find them. The sources for such information are found almost everywhere, from libraries to the Internet. But most Americans did not search for these principles and the values they were built upon. Most of us were trying to eke out a living, stay ahead of the taxman, and raise our children to be great adults.

Our attitudes toward knowing the real America changed dramatically after the 2008 elections. And they changed because the contrast between what progressives like Pelosi believe in, and what mainstream Americans believe in, could not have been starker.

Blogs and stalwart liberal news agencies are all singing the same tune: if Pelosi remains the face of the Democratic party in Washington, it will not only alienate independent voters for the 2012 presidential election, but will also weaken an already weak Democratic caucus before that election.

Russert further asserts, “Her unpopularity around the country – and especially among independents – would be a drag on the party heading into 2012 and a very important presidential election. Not only would she kill any chances of Democrats retaking the House, but she also would hurt President Obama’s ability to work with the GOP over the next two years.”

We can only hope. And right now, our hope springs eternal.

So, run for minority leader Nancy. Cajole your Democrat colleagues. Your liberal legacy is not yet complete. The depth of your failure remains unfulfilled. To put the cherry on top of your progressive sundae, you must hand us conservatives the 2012 presidency and both houses of Congress. You go, girl!

Which brings us to Keith Olbermann. We should all be glad he’s back after his suspension. Putting aside his well-known penchant for fabricating the news, his progressive vitriol is the perfect polar opposite to American values. Add his dash of unwarranted name-calling to anyone who’s conservative, and the differences between he and most independent voters is blatantly apparent.

Although we risk that his vocabulary might lure some people to believe he’s actually saying anything substantial, the contrast of progressive ideology and founding principles is never more on stage when he speaks. Besides, with his dismal 0.7 rating on “the most watched show” on hapless MSNBC, how many can he actually reach?

During a lengthy diatribe to rouse liberals to vote on the midterms, Olbermann said Tea Party candidates were “unstable individuals”.

According to Olbermann, Tea Party candidates, if elected, were going to, “march this nation as far backward as they can get, backward to Jim Crow, or backward to the breadlines of the '30s, or backward to hanging union organizers, or backward to the Trusts and the Robber Barons.”

The midterm election, if won by Tea Party candidates was going to be “nothing short of an attempt to use Democracy to end this Democracy.”

And finally, about Tea Partyers and conservatives alike, “They see the future of America not in progress, but in revolution to establish a theocracy for white males, with dissent caged and individuality suppressed.”